NPRM Mandatory fuel reserves

[Russ]

500+hrs...........purrs like a cat. ( and that's 400hrs tiger country )

 

But...............will drop in a Camit, as soon as legal.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Sumthin like this....

All the best with it Russ, have a real good one.

 

 

[coljones]

Sumthin like this....

Don't forget to pick up CAGIT on the way through.

 

 

[DWF]

...... then down to Perth for a conference and back home via the southern coast.I'm going to have to carry extra fuel because there is no avgas at Warburton and I don't have the long legs you have in the Jabiru.

 

Can't decide whether to use a plastic tank or a bladder but I won't plumb it in; just siphon into main tank on the ground at Warburton.

 

Kaz

G'day Kaz

 

 

 

Be sure to call into Myrup Heights (just north of Myrup airstrip - YMYU) [Esperance] on your way home. We have airstrip and accommodation. PM me for details.

 

 

 

Are you sure there is no AVGAS at Warburton?

 

ERSA still says both AVTUR and AVGAS are available - with prior notice. It is a busy aviation hub and I would be surprised if you can't get AVGAS there any more.

 

I don't think they have AVGAS at Cobra though.

 

 

 

Have a great trip.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[kaz3g]

 

G'day Kaz 

 

Be sure to call into Myrup Heights (just north of Myrup airstrip - YMYU) [Esperance] on your way home. We have airstrip and accommodation. PM me for details.

 

 

 

Are you sure there is no AVGAS at Warburton?

 

ERSA still says both AVTUR and AVGAS are available - with prior notice. It is a busy aviation hub and I would be surprised if you can't get AVGAS there any more.

 

I don't think they have AVGAS at Cobra though.

 

 

 

Have a great trip.

 

 

 

DWF

Hi DWF

 

Thank you for your kind offer. I'll let you know when I settle on plans and dates a bit nearer to the event. There is a law conference in Perth for about a week commencing second week August and I'll go to that after visiting Cobra for a week or so.

 

I emailed them at Warburton and got a short reply that Opal only is available.

 

It would be great if they have avgas in bulk and I will phone Warburton to check again, but leaving more than half a 44 behind would be awfully painful if they only have drum stock.

 

I guess I'll have enough visiting to do while at Cobra that I'll use a drum there without wasting any

 

Regards to all in the West

 

Kaz

 

 

[DWF]

G'day Kaz

 

 

 

It is (or was 12months ago) bowser fuel at Warburton. Do not plan to stay overnight [or get anything to eat] there - it is the end of the Earth.

 

Probably best to give them a phone call (number in ERSA).

 

If you have any doubts I suggest you call Goldfields Air Services in Kalgoorlie. They have a flight out there almost every day and can give you the latest info.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Patjar is north of Warburton, worth a look.

 

Good strip and fuel if you ring.

 

We decided to go that way after staying overnight at Giles enroute to Coral Bay.

 

Probably a bit out of your way though.

 

The community turned up and opened the "shed" fantastic display of art at very reasonable prices.

 

Would recommend

 

PHIL.

 

 

[Russ]

Docker river have drum avgas, ask nice, and you might get 50...60 litres. ( ring 1st, and get the Ok )

 

Another method........ring Alice springs fuel company, that delivers fuel in bulk to all sorts of places that way, they will deliver 60L x ??? drums to one of their customers, that you have pre organised.

 

Another method......ring the Perth Co, that delivers way east from perth..........same pre organising needed. ( perth and alice sort of meet half way ) ....Somewhere ??? i've got all the details you need........i'll try to locate it.

 

"Opal" unleaded..........always available at most places, but some folks report bad experiences using it. True / false........don't know.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Thank you DWF, Phil and Russ

 

All really helpful and the sort of assistance that makes me proud to be part of a very special aviation community.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dutchroll]

Interesting thread, and if AOPA are unhappy about the draft CAR 234 then it would appear to me that they haven't read either the new one or the old one. There's a degree of "barking up the wrong tree" here.

 

Not carrying enough fuel has always been an offence of strict liability under Civil Aviation Regs. Nothing changes here. Not even the penalty changes.

 

The draft CAR doesn't specify fuel at takeoff or landing. It simply says that CASA can issue instruments relating to fuel requirements. They can actually already do this, but the draft CAR just makes this very clear.

 

The old CAR 234 already requires a Court to take into account CASA guidance material on fuel requirements. It is not optional. In other words, if the CAAP says you should have 45 mins fixed reserve, which it has for as long as I can remember, and you are involved in a fuel exhaustion incident, then the court must take into account that you've disregarded the CASA advice or recommendations when determining your liability. You're in the sh*t either way.

 

The 45 minutes fixed reserve does seem onerous for some aircraft types and that has always been a problem. I think CASA should make some leeway there (like maybe more like 30 mins) especially if you're tooling around 5 minutes from your home airstrip. But don't forget that is at "holding speed". What is holding speed? You hold at your best endurance speed, generally. In other words, at the speed which gives you the absolute minimum fuel flow without falling out of the sky.

 

If you work this out properly for your aircraft, you may be surprised at how little fuel that can actually be. For my aircraft I can get that down to 28 litres/hr, or a fixed reserve of 21 litres of fuel........in an aircraft that burns 2 1/2 litres a minute at full power. I can tell you if was approaching the airfield with 20 litres of gas left, I would be fair dinkum about to crap myself and if I had to do a go round for whatever reason, well that'd be one new seat cover required. This is why we have fixed fuel reserves. You come in with minimum fuel, someone makes you do a go round, you pour on the power and pull the nose up in a low fuel state.......now what?

 

So before we get all upset, let's carefully look at the real legislative differences, whether these affect the CAR, or the instrument (an instrument is a lot easier to change) and whether these make any practical difference to the current situation which already specifies FFR of 45 mins and although being "advisory", still requires a court to consider whether you've deliberately disregarded that advice. Maybe use it as an opportunity to talk sensibly about how CASA should manage things when it comes to very low endurance aircraft, and I agree they definitely need to look at this.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Interesting thread, and if AOPA are unhappy about the draft CAR 234 then it would appear to me that they haven't read either the new one or the old one. There's a degree of "barking up the wrong tree" here.Not carrying enough fuel has always been an offence of strict liability under Civil Aviation Regs. Nothing changes here. Not even the penalty changes.

 

The draft CAR doesn't specify fuel at takeoff or landing. It simply says that CASA can issue instruments relating to fuel requirements. They can actually already do this, but the draft CAR just makes this very clear.

 

The old CAR 234 already requires a Court to take into account CASA guidance material on fuel requirements. It is not optional. In other words, if the CAAP says you should have 45 mins fixed reserve, which it has for as long as I can remember, and you are involved in a fuel exhaustion incident, then the court must take into account that you've disregarded the CASA advice or recommendations when determining your liability. You're in the sh*t either way.

 

The 45 minutes fixed reserve does seem onerous for some aircraft types and that has always been a problem. I think CASA should make some leeway there (like maybe more like 30 mins) especially if you're tooling around 5 minutes from your home airstrip. But don't forget that is at "holding speed". What is holding speed? You hold at your best endurance speed, generally. In other words, at the speed which gives you the absolute minimum fuel flow without falling out of the sky.

 

If you work this out properly for your aircraft, you may be surprised at how little fuel that can actually be. For my aircraft I can get that down to 28 litres/hr, or a fixed reserve of 21 litres of fuel........in an aircraft that burns 2 1/2 litres a minute at full power. I can tell you if was approaching the airfield with 20 litres of gas left, I would be fair dinkum about to crap myself and if I had to do a go round for whatever reason, well that'd be one new seat cover required.

 

So before we get all upset, let's carefully look at the real legislative differences, whether these affect the CAR, or the instrument (an instrument is a lot easier to change) and whether these make any practical difference to the current situation which already specifies FFR of 45 mins and although being "advisory", still requires a court to consider whether you've deliberately disregarded that advice. Maybe use it as an opportunity to talk sensibly about how CASA should manage things when it comes to very low endurance aircraft, and I agree they definitely need to look at this.

I feel you're missing the point dutchy, there are plenty of aircraft operating safely without carrying 45mins FR. These proposed changes will make their operations illegal. This whole episode is political and in response to charter / aerial work operators not following their own policies. Commercial operators are required to have a fuel policy stated in their op's manuals, whereas private operators do not. The last 2 ATSB reports (each covering 10 year periods) state the rates of fuel exhaustion have significantly reduced and attribute this to pilot education campaigns. Fuel system mismanagement incidents are higher than exhaustion and have higher injury / fatality rates - mandating fixed reserves will have zero effect on fixing this problem. What I'm saying is bugger off and leave private operators alone! I'm sure some operators of aircraft similar to yours could easily identify increased risks in performing displays due to performance penalties associated with the requirement to carry a fixed reserve of 45 minutes in top of their planned display / contingency requirements.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I'll bet some haven't even looked at what they can get at an endurance/minimum drag fuel flow and translated that into 45 minutes. That's the sort of thing which should be determined during test flying or the very early stages of getting to know your plane. My 21 litres fixed reserve would get me only 20-30 minutes of flight even at economy cruise before the tank ran dry, or 8 minutes endurance at full power, but it's still a legal 45 minutes fixed reserve so it's not particularly onerous for me at least, even when doing aerobatics. And if I have 21 litres left in the tank and I'm still doing aerobatic stuff at high power in all sorts of attitudes, I have serious problems (not the least of which is that I'd be an idiot).

 

"But what about me?" I hear you ask. I agree that CASA need to take into account some other types of aircraft or operations in their instrument. I don't think the CAR 234 draft is an issue personally, but in the instrument which clarifies the details, the categories are probably too broad if they're apply it to private aircraft.

 

People should take a serious look at how they can scrounge that 45 minutes before organising the street protests.

 

 

[kaz3g]

The draft CAAP clearly refers to fuel remaining at the destination aerodrome and the accompanying proposed change to the Regulation will make it an offence to ARRIVE without that reserve on board. As someone who knows more than I said, "they want to have something absolute to measure, Kaz."

 

"FIXED FUEL RESERVE – the amount of fuel, expressed as a period of time, required to fly at holding speed at 1,500 feet above aerodrome elevation at ISA conditions, calculated with the estimated weight on arrival at the destination alternate aerodrome, or the destination aerodrome when no destination alternate aerodrome is required, that would be useable fuel remaining in the fuel tanks until completion of the final landing."

 

The current Regulation CAR 234 just as clearly refers to the fuel uplift at TAKEOFF.

 

" (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not commence a flight within Australian territory, or to or from Australian territory, if he or she has not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety."

 

Be aware also, that there are more calculations required both pre-flight and in-flight, and a Fuel Mayday must be called if the total remaining fuel falls below the mandatory minimum fixed reserve. Call it and you get pinged, of course! That will undoubtedly encourage transparency and full compliance.

 

Finally, you have to use aircraft specific fuel consumption data taken from the AFM, or the engine manufacturer if not available. Only where no specific fuel consumption data exists for the precise conditions of the flight, may the aircraft be operated in accordance with estimated fuel consumption data.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So if you're say 5 minutes into your 45mins, what's the point in declaring a mayday?

 

Mayday is grave and imminent danger, Pan is urgency. Surely unless you're about to run out of fuel a pan would suffice, if any call is required at all.

 

I can just imagine "Pitts XYZ taxying for airdisplay overhead, mayday mayday mayday fuel, lining up runway 23"

 

 

[SDQDI]

I can understand getting charged for running out of fuel but getting charged for using some of your reserve seems very counter intuitive to safety IMO and of course will make pilots less likely to seek help if needed in a low fuel situation.

 

 

[facthunter]

Quite stupid really . You would then need to carry reserves to protect your reserves. Time these people got real. You carry a reserve to USE if required under the circumstances that were correctly anticipated. You do not PLAN the flight without the required reserves nor do you procede if an alternate course of action is available,( ie return or divert to a suitable destination) without the LEGALLY required reserves at that point. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Quite stupid really . You would then need to carry reserves to protect your reserves. Time these people got real. You carry a reserve to USE if required under the circumstances that were correctly anticipated. You do not PLAN the flight without the required reserves nor do you procede if an alternate course of action is available,( ie return or divert to a suitable destination) without the LEGALLY required reserves at that point. Nev

That's the way it has read for many years FH.

Most people would be able to divert to an alternate airfield or perform a precautionary landing, and it should only ever arise in very rare circumstances.

 

Even with Strict Liability, if you were given a penalty, don't you have the right to have the matter heard in Court, and you do with an alleged traffic infringment?

 

 

[dutchroll]

I can just imagine "Pitts XYZ taxying for airdisplay overhead, mayday mayday mayday fuel, lining up runway 23"

You could justify a 20 litre fixed reserve for a Pitts S-2 if you really want to. I can't ever see anyone trying to get airborne in a Pitts for an aerobatics display with 20 litres of fuel in the tank. Well, not anyone with any sort of desire for longevity.

You going to declare a Mayday for estimated arrival fuel a litre or 2 below? Probably not, unless the weather's bad or whatever. Unless you drain the tank completely, how do you (or CASA) know exactly what's in it? Certainly not by the fuel gauges that's for sure. If you have a good fuel flow setup you might know a bit more precisely. A little bit of common sense needs to apply here, but while we accuse, rightly or wrongly, CASA of not using common sense, we sometimes fall into the trap of not using it ourselves.

 

 

[kaz3g]

That's the way it has read for many years FH.Most people would be able to divert to an alternate airfield or perform a precautionary landing, and it should only ever arise in very rare circumstances.

Even with Strict Liability, if you were given a penalty, don't you have the right to have the matter heard in Court, and you do with an alleged traffic infringment?

A defendant to a charge always has the right to defend it in Court...but the defence available is extremely limited under the Criminal Code. There must be a mistake which is both honest AND reasonable.

 

The other issue sitting beside this is the propensity of the Regulator to use its Administrative powers to deal with "fit and proper person" considerations by suspending licences even where the evidence doesn't stand up to the criminal test.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dutchroll]

The other issue sitting beside this is the propensity of the Regulator to use its Administrative powers to deal with "fit and proper person" considerations by suspending licences even where the evidence doesn't stand up to the criminal test.Kaz

I guess folk would generally be less worried about these types of changes if CASA's track record for targeting the right people was better.

There are people attacked who should probably be given some benefit of doubt, but also I know of people who CASA really should target getting away with stuff until someone dies. Not quite sure what the solution is to that problem, but nothing much seems to be changing.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Every inmate is innocent.

 

 

[facthunter]

Aircraft divert more than one would think. It's costly and disrupts schedules. It may involve diverting to a destination where there is only one runway. Something to be avoided also, if there's another option. only a bit further away . Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Every inmate is innocent.

This one's for Gnu too..

 

Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake." [Genesis 18:32]

 

Kaz

 

 

[djpacro]

The pilot-in-command must declare “MINIMUM FUEL” when, based on the current ATC clearance at the aerodrome to which the aeroplane is committed, the amount of fuel predicted to be remaining upon landing will approach the planned fixed fuel reserve quantity.

will oblige many aerobatic aerobatic aircraft inbound to Moorabbin after a typical aerobatic flight to call "MINIMUM FUEL" as we're typically unable to carry much more than a generous 45 mins fuel reserve to stay within max aerobatic weight limitations. Lucky that CASA doesn't also require us to wear parachutes.

[dutchroll]

"....approach the planned fixed reserve quantity..." is typically vague.

 

However it's a good example of where a bit more flexibility based on aircraft type and operation (eg within the training area of its local airport) needs to be applied.